In its latest judgment on the issue of access to antitrust investigation files by third party claimants (EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission [2012] T-344), the EU General Court has reminded the European Commission that it may not reject summarily private claimants’ requests for access. Subject to certain exceptions, the Commission must instead undertake an individual and specific review of the requested documents and provide strong and reasoned justifications before it can deny a claimant access. The point was also made that actions for damages before national courts can also make a significant contribution to the maintenance of effective competition.

The EnBW judgment comes hot on the heels of another ruling by the General Court (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v European Commission [2011] T-437/08), which held that the Commission had been wrong in refusing to disclose the index of its investigative file to a damages claimant following an infringement decision in the Bleach cartel. The judgment of the General Court in EnBW deals a serious blow to the restrictive approach of the Commission at a time when prospective plaintiffs are increasingly seeking access to investigation files not only from the Commission, but also from EU national competition authorities. At the same time, national competition authorities are showing increased resistance towards a weakening of their respective leniency programmes. One example is the recent pledge by the heads of EU competition authorities to do their utmost to ensure that their leniency programmes are not compromised (See Resolution of the Meeting of Heads of the European Competition Authorities of 23 May 2012).

The Decision of the Commission to Deny Access to the File

Documents Requested

On 27 January 2007, the Commission issued its decision in the Gas Insulated Switchgear cartel. Pursuant to the decision, 20 companies were found to have infringed the EU antitrust rules (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). For the purposes of substantiating its claim against the cartel perpetrators, EnBW—a publicly-traded electric utilities company—sought access to a swathe of documents held by the Commission. The Commission, on the basis of the transparency rules (see further below), refused outright to grant EnBW’s request. For the purposes of its assessment, the Commission grouped the documents requested into the following categories:

Documents provided in connection with an immunity or leniency application, namely statements from the undertakings in question and all documents submitted by them in connection with the immunity or leniency application

Requests for information and parties’ replies to those requests

Documents obtained during inspections, namely documents seized at on-the-spot inspections at the premises of the undertakings concerned

Statements of objections and parties’ replies

Internal documents divided into the following two sub-categories:

Documents relating to the facts, that is i) background notes on the conclusions to be drawn from evidence gathered, ii) correspondence with other competition authorities and iii) consultation of other Commission departments in the case

The Commission’s decision to refuse outright access to the documents sought by EnBW was based on its interpretation of exceptions to Regulation 1049/2001 (the Transparency Regulation).

The Transparency Regulation confers on all EU citizens and companies the right to request copies of documents held by the Commission, the EU Council and the European Parliament. It is designed to confer on the public access that is as wide as possible to documents from these institutions. That right of access is nevertheless subject to certain limits, i.e., exceptions based on reasons of public or private interest. It is a fundamental tenet of EU law that since such exceptions derogate from the principle of widest possible public access to documents, the exceptions to the right of access laid down in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 must be interpreted and applied strictly.

Within the context of EnBW’s request for access to the documents, the following exceptions to disclosure are of particular relevance:

Article 4(2) third indent: access to a document must be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits

Article 4(3) second subparagraph: access to a document containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the institution concerned must be refused, even after the decision has been taken, if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision making process

unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

The Commission found that each of the categories of documents requested by EnBW, i.e., categories 1 to 5(b) above, fell within the exception provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 and that the documents in category 5(a) also fell within the exception in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The Commission stated that it could see nothing that indicated there was an overriding public interest in granting access to the documents requested. It gave as its reason for refusing to grant partial access to the case file the fact that all the documents contained in the file were covered in their entirety by the exceptions listed in Regulation 1049/2001.

The Ruling of the General Court

In its assessment of the refusal by the Commission to provide access to the documents requested, the General Court assessed the overarching issue of whether the Commission had met the conditions that must be fulfilled for it to dispense with the requirement to undertake an individual and specific review of the relevant documents. In this context, the General Court noted that there are exceptions to the obligation to undertake such a review. These include:

Situations in which it is obvious, on the basis of a general presumption, that access must be refused or granted

When a single justification may be applied to documents belonging to the same category, if they contain the same type of information

Exceptional cases where the administrative burden entailed by a specific, individual review of the documents would prove particularly heavy, thus exceeding the limits of what may reasonably be required

With regard to the obviousness of the refusal, the General Court held that the Commission should not have assumed, without performing a specific analysis of each document, that all the documents requested were covered by the exception provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

With regard to the exception pertaining to the examination of documents by category, the General Court held that a single justification may be applied to documents belonging to the same category, particularly if they contain the same type of information. Document categories must therefore be defined on the basis of criteria that enable the Commission to apply a single line of reasoning to all the documents within one category. However, the General Court noted, inter alia, that the reasoning of the Commission was essentially identical for each of categories 1, 2, 4 and 5(a). For example, it found that the Commission had acted, for each of those categories, on the basis of the consideration that disclosure of the documents would make leniency applicants less likely to come forward to apply for leniency. As a result, it was held that the Commission’s division of the documents into categories was artificial: it did not reflect real differences in the content of the documents within the various categories.

As far as the exception pertaining to an unreasonable amount of work in dealing with the request for access to the relevant documents was concerned, the General Court held, inter alia, that the European Commission may only dispense with the individual and specific review after it has investigated thoroughly all other options and explained in detail in its decision the reasons why those other options involve an unreasonable amount of work.

The General Court held that the Commission was entitled to carry out an examination by category solely in relation to the exception concerning the protection of the purpose of investigations and only in the case of category 3 documents, i.e., the documents obtained during inspections. However, the General Court noted that in EnBW the Commission had already adopted the decision in Gas Insulated Switchgears, as a result of which there was no investigation in progress that would have been jeopardised by the disclosure of the requested documents. Furthermore, the General Court held that the concept of “purpose of investigations” does not extend beyond the particular cartel proceedings at hand so as to cover the whole of the Commission’s policy with regard to the punishment and prevention of cartels. Moreover, the General Court recalled that leniency programmes—the effectiveness of which the Commission was seeking to protect—are not the only means of ensuring compliance with EU competition law. Actions for damages before national courts can also make a significant contribution to the maintenance of effective competition.

With regard to Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation 1049/2001, the General Court observed that the Commission had failed to establish to the required legal standard that all the documents within category 5(a) had the status of “opinions” within the meaning of the Regulation. Furthermore, insofar as the documents within category 5(a) contained actual opinions, the Commission was found to have held incorrectly that their disclosure would seriously undermine its decision-making process.

Implications

The EnBW judgment represents another manifestation of the fine balance that needs to be established between ensuring the robustness of the leniency programmes of the competition authorities on the one hand, and the ability of damages claimants to be able to build a credible case against cartel perpetrators on the other. Going forward, we can be sure that the Commission will be likely to implement with more rigour its assessment of whether to grant access to documents on file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.